Put Away the Champagne, Dems

Any objective person realizes that Palin’s performance in the campaign so far has been dismal (see Katie Couric interview for details). But here’s the thing: most voters aren’t objective. As argued convincingly in this salon.com article, the Palin pick was never about picking someone qualified to be Vice President – it’s about bringing back the culture war.

Given Palin’s poor performance so far, it’s not surprising that the liberal pundits are predicting that she will embarrass the McCain campaign in the debate. More importantly, Biden is an experienced and knowledgeable debater who would be a tough opponent for even a strong VP nominee. He should be able to blow her off the stage, right?

Well, that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. Biden could drown Palin with statistics and exploit her mistakes, allowing him to “win” the debate. But the people who like Palin don’t like her because of her debate skills; they like her folksy charm, her values, and the fact that she seems like them. For the conservative base, Biden dominating the debate would just look like an elitist liberal jerk beating up on a wholesome small-town girl.

I expect the Obama campaign knows this and Biden has been told to hold back. On the other side, McCain's advisers have been working with Palin and they know allowing her to speak her mind is dangerous. Bottom-line? Don't expect Biden's extemporaneous honesty or Palin's Red-State charm to make appearances. This debate will probably involve both candidates sticking to their talking points, and neither side will be popping champagne afterwards.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/us/politics/30palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

http://www.startribune.com/nation/29862744.html?page=1&c=y

Good For All, Available for None- Universal Health Care in America

According to a 2007 U.S Census survey, 45.7 million people living in the United States are uninsured.(1) That’s 45.7 million people that cannot become ill without risking everything they’ve worked so hard to gain- their house, their jobs, and for about 18,000 people every year, their lives.(2) 45.7 million people, among them 8.1 million children,(3) that have fallen through the cracks of a broken system.

Some argue that a universal system would result in poorer quality health care for all and scorn the notion of “socialization.” Although I can certainly not answer to all the critics of universal health care, I cannot believe that any person would support the death and struggle of uninsured Americans simply to justify the prolongation of an ineffective system.

While the majority of Americans support universal coverage for all US citizens, there still exists controversy over the implementation of an effective solution.(4) Both presidential candidates have addressed the issue in a moderate way- make more options available and let the free market lower the costs. Senator McCain is in favor of credits for the insured.(5) Senator Obama prefers extending the current employer-based system and creating government standards for insurance providers, thus making premiums more affordable for businesses and consumers.(6)

Although both plans are a step in the right direction, neither candidate supports mandates for, nor guarantees, universal coverage. At the end of the day, the average Joe would still be left to his own devices in securing medical care (leaving some Americans still uninsured). In spite of the candidates’ platforms, Americans can only hope for meager, if any, gains towards complete coverage. Between the United States’ antisocialist sentiment and the recent economic crisis universal health care will inevitably be on the political back burner.

Universal health care is a moral and economic imperative. Yet, it seems that a national solution is not on the horizon. Perhaps we should put our faith in the ability of Congress to put aside partisan dispute for the greater good of its citizens (we’ve seen how well that cooperative notion has succeeded in the recently rejected economic recovery bill). Until then, moving to Canada is always an option.

1, 3. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html
2. http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848
4. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
5. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
6. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

The Apotheosis of John Rawls

Today's stock market tumble did not seem imminent until the afternoon; indeed, investors were generally optimistic in the morning about the chances of receiving a much-needed injection of 700 billion dollars from Congress. President Bush (a Republican), Henry Paulson (an economist), Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat), and the leaders of the Republicans in the Senate and House (fiscally conservative, Bush-hatin' cowboys), all seemed to agree that the stimulus package was a necessary if unfortunate measure. They even gave speeches (in the case of Pelosi, two of them) declaring their belief that the bill would pass. As the votes started coming in however, traders got more and more nervous. Eventually, the package was defeated. Congress packed up and went home for the holiday. The DOW plummeted by a lucky 777 points, or 7 percent of its total. What happened?

The underlying problem is that the idea of the public funding a 700 billion dollar bailout for greedy bankers was unconscionable for House Republicans and some Democrats. Surely they felt that to pay wealthy bankers 700 billion dollars for billions in assets would be to reward them twice over, which is not the role of the government, you say? That to reward those already gifted in the arts of magical numbers is contrary to the interests of the poorest? Nay, nay, it was simply a case of self-interest. Even though the stimulus bill is vital for the economy's stability, some Republicans are so afraid of being labeled a "tax-raiser" by their constituents that they will cause millions of these same folks to lose their employment. These politicians will do anything to get elected, but they would do better by their country if they remembered: one must sometimes aid the rich to save the poor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?hp

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard UP, 2005.

Debate Off

The first presidential debate, set against the backdrop of great national financial crisis, arising from the all-for-nothing drama of the McCain campaign, considered to be a major factor in determining 4 out of 10 voters’ decision at the ballot box*, pitting a fiery, off the cuff speaker against a cool, cerebral intellect (you can guess who was who), ultimately came to…an undecided outcome. Newspapers all have a differing opinion as to who was the winner, and different writers for the same newspaper disagree even more. The Iowa Electronic Markets barely registered a blip. It’s amazing, but I think this represents a win for McCain.
Consider the past week. The world started to discover that Sarah Palin has no idea what she’s talking about. McCain seems to have failed to impress the public with his heroics, trying to rush back to D.C. and single-handedly put together a bailout package. It should also be noted that McCain probably tired himself out with all this drama, and that standing through a 90-minute debate is especially exhausting when you’re already 72. Consider that Obama should be able to link any major catastrophe (Wall Street) to the governing Republic party (McCain). Not only that, but recent news has found strong ties between McCain and our now-defunct financial giants, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. And that while this was supposed to be the foreign policy debate, an advantage for McCain, it ended up being 50-50 with the economy, an area in which voters place more faith in Obama. Plus, Obama is hands down the better orator, while McCain seemed to break out a few too many rehearsed phrases (my favorite one involving the letters K, G, and B). That Obama was not able to decisively win the debate comes as a disappointment. It was a missed opportunity for the Democratic team to permanently link all this bad news to the McCain ticket.
I will say that the overall quality of the debate was better than four years ago; the candidates did, on occasion, and after a little prodding, address each other directly. In terms of how much fun these debates are, though, I’m looking forward to Thursday night.



Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247204209780953.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28dowd.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?th&emc=th

*Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll

Sarah Staggers Under Stress

Uh oh, Sarah Palin better do some serious studying this week. The close presidential race between Obama and McCain has put Governor Palin's campaign for vice president into the spotlight. After Friday's Obama/McCain debate, 52% of viewers said Obama had the better proposals to fix the country's problems, while only 35% favored McCain. Apparently, McCain needs all the help he can get.
The Republican Party hopes that Palin's debate with Obama's vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, will be a "game changer." McCain even assigned his own debate coach, Brett O'Donnell, to work with Palin this week. She is staying with McCain at his ranch in Arizona to prepare for Thursday's debate.
Why the big fuss? It seems that since Palin's surprising nomination a month ago, she has only brought close scrutiny to McCain's campaign. Several "shaky performances" by Palin have lead to the disapproval of many republicans, and this lack of confidence in the Alaskan governor has negatively affected her ratings in recent polls. Last week, almost 50% of respondents to a Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll stated that in their opinion, Palin is not qualified to serve as vice president.
Recent disappointments by Palin include her weak interview with Katie Couric and her statements about Pakistan that McCain had to personally retract. However, some prominent Republicans have expressed concern that all this coaching is compromising Palin’s expression of her own views on important matters.
Well, we don’t have long to wait until we see if all this coaching pays off. Because Palin is such a new face on the national scale, everyone will be watching to see if she stands her own against Biden.
So will she crack under pressure, as she has so many times before? Or will she prove the critics wrong? Personally, I can’t wait to see her next slip up.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265784614384667.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
http://www.juancole.com/

Why Your Vote Doesn't Count

Election. It’s the word on everyone’s lips, and has been for the better part of the year. Everyone has his candidate, and most people aren’t bashful about announcing who his or hers is. Unfortunately, come November, only about three-fiftieths of the population will have a true say in deciding the next President of the United States.

This, of course, is a result of the electoral college. Yes, the electoral college, the outdated and outmoded mechanism that traditionalists seem willing to lay down and die for, is what truly decides the election. You see, the truth, as demonstrated by the New York Times, is that only about 7 of our 50 great states, representing a whopping one-tenth of the nation’s population, are truly in contention come November. Factor out voter participation and you are left with three-fiftieths (19.77 million) of our nation’s population that truly calls the shots this fall.

While I am all for honoring the constitution and the founding fathers’ intentions, I think we can all agree that given the current circumstances, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton and the rest of the founders would not have developed the same system that they did hundreds of years ago. Advocates of the college argue that eliminating it strips the states of yet another of their dwindling rights. But shouldn’t the will of the people come ahead of the rights of the states?

One can argue the electoral college until heart’s content, but boil the truth down to this: The college has changed the results of several elections throughout our history. If you were to sit down and redevelop how we elect the president, could you possibly develop the electoral college and find it equitable?

Ultimately, the apathy of the states as well as the Congress needs to be ended, by a constitutional amendment that gives the vote back to 274 million of us that don’t live in the battleground states this fall.




Sources:
The New York Times
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html

Populations (US Census 2000) via
http://www.wikipedia.org

A new (green)house for homeless i-bankers?

It is safe to say that a $700 billion proposed bailout signifies the end of even the pretense of small government in any sense for either political party. So now that the federal wallet is out, why don’t we spend money on something worthwhile?

Tomorrow the Senate will vote on a bill that determines if tax credits for using renewable energy sources will be extended. In a way, it is lucky that the vote is occurring at all, as just last week many news sources speculated that it would be left to die at the hands of election fever and not go to vote before Congress adjourns on the 26th.

However, the scope of the bill leaves much to be desired. Although it allows for homeowners to claim tax credit for the partial costs of installing solar panels, energy efficient insulation, windows, and heating and cooling equipment, the meat of the legislation focuses on corporations. Why is this not ideal? Germany provides the answer. Its
Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), or Renewable Energy Sources law, subsidizes private citizens who produce their own energy from renewable sources, and allows them to sell surplus back to the grid.

A similar plan in the United States could serve as a spark to bring that good-ole American ingenuity into the environmental sector. Perhaps as companies spring up to fill the needs of homeowners looking for energy efficient home additions, capitalism could make a comeback. Calling all former Lehman’s employees . . .

Sources: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809162343DOWJONESDJONLINE000810_FORTUNE5.htm

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/printout/0,29239,1730759_1734222_1734213,00.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2231304820080922?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel

race in the Big Race

So far in this race for the White House we have seen a woman almost become a presidential nominee, and now we have the first black man to not only run for the presidency with the possibility of winning, but also to become the Democratic presidential nominee. But we have to ask ourselves, even though most Americans seem to welcome the fresh face and race of the nominee, what role will Obama’s race really play in the election? A recent poll organized by Stanford University proposed that the percentage of American voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could be larger than that of the margin of victory in the 2004 election.

As the margin of victory becomes slimmer with each modern election, any slight discrepancy in the voters’ minds can determine the difference between a win or loss, especially for Obama. A recent AP-Yahoo News poll found that one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks. As much as we would hope that the election is based on policy, experience, diplomacy and character, we have to accept the fact that race still plays a vital role in American society. Experts state that republicans are not denying Obama their votes because he is black; they are simply turned off by the fact that he is a democrat.

So where does the race card come in to play? Independent voters and questioning democrats will easily decide this election. Studies found that Obama’s ratings over McCain would be 6 percent higher if there were no apparent white racial prejudice; a racial prejudice that is apparent in his own party. But Obama’s race card has two sides: regardless of the number of voters that are turned off by his race, just as many could cast their vote strictly based on the fact that he is black. Obama has almost unanimous support from the black population, and we would be ignorant to think that this is because of his policies and qualifications.

We claim to be a nation based upon equality and justice for all, but are we really? We may not ever know what goes through a voter’s mind when he casts his ballot, but speculations will be looming regardless of the outcome. This is the biggest and perhaps final test for black Americans wondering if the racial divide has actually closed, and only time will tell.

 

Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-20-Poll-Obama_N.htm

Be the change you wish to see in the world, unless you're running for president

Once upon a time, presidential candidate John McCain fought to diminish the role of "big money" in federal elections. In an effort to crush the potentially corrupting effects of large donations, he spearheaded, along with fellow Senator Russ Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which, as the Supreme Court stated in its opinion of McConnell vs FEC, addressed "the increased importance of soft money, the proliferation of issue ads, and the disturbing findings of a Senate investigation into campaign practices related to the 1996 federal elections." Now, however, in the midst of an outrageously expensive campaign season, McCain has fallen under criticism for what Michael Luo describes in The New York Times as "wring[ing] the maximum out of campaign finance laws in ways that some contend are at odds with the spirit of the reforms they championed."

True, his efforts so far have been legally permissible. But they have also been sketchy. Luo notes, for example, that fund-raisers have largely devoted themselves to soliciting contributions of up to $70,000 for a "special joint fund-raising account," and that Web advertisements for the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, permitted under the auspices of funding legal and accounting costs, ask for donations to finance "a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising."

Of course, on one hand, the need to raise money is evident. Luo writes in another NYT article that the Obama campaign "shattered fund-raising records," spending $53 million in the month of August alone. Raising obscene amounts of money has become an integral part of the campaigning process. But, at the same time, it is disheartening to see a has-been hero of fund-raising righteousness stoop to finding loopholes in the legislation he once championed.

Oh, Those Bailouts

In the span of the last six months, bulge bracket investment banks have been disappearing. Bear Stearns collapsed in March; Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy last week. Merrill has made plans to be bought by Bank of America, while Morgan Stanley is supposedly in talks with Wachovia. Criticism has rebounded in the past week about the US government's push for socialism. Government should not interfere in the private sector. We can overlook certain policies that have been in effect for so long that the denouncement of said policies would incur the involuntary horror of citizens, for example minimum wage, much like Isaiah Berlin's opinion of impregnable, individual spheres of liberty. But the direct intervention by government into the public sphere - cash infusions for companies - is taking things too far. We should not create moral hazard, an atmosphere that seduces corporations into believing that taxpayers will always cover for them. But all right. If our ultimate end is to protect taxpayers from irresponsible corporations, then the best choice might not always be to let those corporations fail, if allowing their failure would cause even deeper damage to taxpayers. Given that these banks inter-invested and that pensions and IRAs held stock of these banks as well as stock of companies who in turn had invested in these banks, and given that the vast majority of Americans plan for retirement, then bailing out these banks was on some level justifiable. Potentially bailing out the Detroit automakers, however, is not. Americans would still have cars to buy even if GM, Chrysler, and Ford tanked. No reason exists for these three companies to get $25 billion in loan from the US government. They are not crucially intertwined in the financial word; they are not tied to most Americans. So why make most Americans support the burden of the potential layoffs of a few? The Big Three should bite their lips and learn from their more successful competitors instead of begging for an unfair boost.
Source: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903183.html?sub=AR]

What Has the Amethyst Initiative Been Drinking?

On September 3rd, 2008, Tammy Wallis was killed as she stepped out of her car to retrieve her mail. The alleged culprit: Jonathan Burke, a drunk driver who veered out of his lane and struck Ms. Wallis with his vehicle, only to subsequently flee the scene. Ms. Wallis leaves behind a young daughter of 5, Alexandria, who still cannot comprehend this terrible tragedy. Unfortunately, the circumstances of Ms. Wallis’ death are not individual to her: there are almost 16,000 drunk-driving related fatalities a year, more than four times the total American casualties of the current Iraq war. Still, a group calling itself the Amethyst Initiative, comprised of presidents and chancellors from institutions of higher learning in the United States, is campaigning to change the current drinking age from 21 to 18, hoping to restore the drinking age to its pre-1984 level. Though I, a student under 21, studying at an American university, can certainly relate to the visceral desire to lower the drinking age, doing so would be—like Ms. Wallis’ death—tragic, leading to more alcohol consumption and therefore a greater number of alcohol-related incidents and deaths, automobile or otherwise.

The Amethyst Initiative’s position is two-fold: an ideological belief that gaining many rights at 18 should also give one the right to consume alcohol at the same time, as well as a practical belief that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Both of these positions are incorrect. However, while the former is debatable, the latter is not. The Amethyst Initiatives claim is this: “adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.” First, though it is true that each American citizen does gain a number of rights and responsibilities when he or she turns 18, there is no reason to believe that all rights should be granted at this age. In fact, boys and girls as young as 12 have been charged as adults in American criminal court. Should those as young as 12 be legally allowed to consume alcohol? Secondly, the belief that lowering the drinking age will lower alcohol consumption sounds counterintuitive—and for good reason. The Amethyst Position is that due to the current drinking age “a culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.” Actually, there is virtually no reason to believe that, by lowering the drinking age to 18 and removing alcohol’s allure as “taboo,” so called “binge drinking” would subside. Indeed, in Great Britain, a country in which the drinking age is 16, 53,844 under-25’s, the vast majority between 16 and 25, were admitted to hospitals for dangerous binge drinking. It is probably true that some under-aged drinkers do consume alcohol because they are legally forbidden to do so, but the evidence shows that lowering the drinking age would only make the problem of underage drinking worse. Not only is the Amethyst Initiative’s position demonstrably false, there are stark benefits to keeping the drinking age as it is—if not making it higher.

Raising the drinking age to 21 has led to clear societal advantages, namely safer physical development as well as a reduction in alcohol-related automobile fatalities. First, underage drinking, or drinking by those whose brains are not yet fully developed, is also incredibly detrimental to one’s health. Underage drinking can result in problems with brain development, memory, and can lead to alcohol dependence. Unrelated to development, the loss of inhibition associated with alcohol consumption that can lead to one placing him or herself in situations of compromised safety, often sexual situations. Finally, alcohol consumption is heavily associated with traffic fatalities. Three statisticians—Ralph W. Hingson, Jonathan Howland and Suzette Levenson—found that:

"There is evidence to suggest that legal changes have produced declines in alcohol related traffic fatalities. Well-controlled studies of increases in the legal drinking age revealed that although the effects varied from State to State, in States that raised their drinking ages, night fatal crashes in targeted age groups declined 10 to 15 percent relative to States that did not."

Indeed, the higher drinking age has led to fewer automobile fatalities. MADD estimates that, on aggregate, the higher drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since it was put into place in 1984. Raising the drinking age to—and keeping the drinking age at—21 provides society with myriad benefits from safer physical development for children to a decrease in alcohol-related deaths.

There are too many Tammy Wallis’, too many who are harmed or die because of alcohol’s poisonous deluge. The Amethyst Initiative is irresponsible in its movement for a lower drinking age—wrong because a lower drinking age causes more drinking and more deaths. If anything, we should work to stem the tide of alcohol influence, not release the floodgates.

Sources:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-090608-sjf-newtonvigil.4f79b022.html

http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051160/Revealed-The-50-000-young-people-drink-way-hospital-year.html

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa59.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-arson-death_x.htm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4628559?seq=2&Search=yes&term=21&term=traffic&term=fatalities&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D21%2Btraffic%2Bfatalities%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DDrinking%2Bage%2B21%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=3&ttl=1053&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle

http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/